User talk:Enterprisey/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Enterprisey. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

I'm glad you like editing! If you need any help, feel free to ask at the WP:Help desk. :)

πr² (t • c) 04:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

 

You may be interested in a proposal to move Taxonomy (general) to Taxonomy. Discussion is at Talk:Taxonomy (general)#Requested move. Cnilep (talk) 07:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:APerson241/Perspective (video game) has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Perspective (video game), this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article. Your draft is waiting for a review by an experienced editor, if you have any questions please ask on our Help Desk! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 19:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

You said the article I proposed to be created, 1999 Oklahoma Sooners football team, "does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own", though it has more content than any article on a Sooner football team before 1999, and all of those were approved. There's an individual article for every Sooner team from 1950-1998, plus the 2000 team, 2004, and the ones from 2006-2013. It doesn't make any sense to have the 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2005 teams the only teams since the 40's to not have their own article. I'd like to create an article for each of the ones I just listed, and then possibly get rid of the Oklahoma Sooners football under Bob Stoops article, because Bob Stoops already has his own page, and each of the seasons he coached will have one. I urge you to reconsider your decision, and let me create the rest of the articles. Kobra98 (talk) 01:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done Good point. Accepted. APerson241 (talk) 02:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Perspective (video game), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Portal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank for your feedback on my sandbox page, and I seek to understand your logic to place the Rip Chords under Bruce and Terry. This only perpetuates the inaccuracies that were perpetuated by the web until the Sundazed CD release finally corrected history. Bruce and Terry did one song by themselves and put it under the Rip Chords name, hence the confusion. Please let me know what is wrong with having a page for the Rip Chords that produced 33 songs, of which only one had only Bruce and Terry's vocals on it. http://www.sundazed.com/shop/product_info.php?products_id=804 Thanks for helping me understand why your decision not to allow a stand alone page. TL001 (talk) 20:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done Article The Rip Chords (band) created.

Hi mate, you reviewed the above at AFC and allowed it to be recreated only hours after it was deleted at AFD. I've tagged it for G4 speedy deletion and thought I should let you know. Cheers, Stalwart111 18:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your comment on our page "Comment: There seems to be 2 articles smashed together in this page. In addition, the title of this proposed article takes its name from a section header, not from the subject of the article(s). "

Is this happened because I put "introduction" as a title on the Wikipedia Wizard as new article draft? Please advise. - By User:ConfluencePM (talk)

 Done Responded on your talk page.

Regarding the issue you mention as your criteria for declining the submission: NOTABILITY, this individual has been a guest speaker hundreds of times (as the following citation demonstrates)^[1] on all major news broadcasting networks - so it stands to reason that her opinion is widely respected - does that not count as notable? If it does not count as notable, can you explain why? i.e. would she have to have her own TV show? If you agree her network appearances are notable, can you please offer some advice on what additional citations or inclusions are necessary? - By User:Jaselives (talk)

Responded on your talk page.

I think what I am asking boils down to this, does the fact that Shari is regularly interviewed for her opinion make her notable? If it does, I thought video from all the major networks (as listed on her YouTube channel, would be considered a source, is that an incorrect assumption? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaselives (talk • contribs) 17:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Are there any citations to websites or videos that specifically say so? APerson241 (talk) 17:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

What would the videos have to say? I am unclear what I would be searching for. For example, every video clip listed on her YouTube channel is her being interviewed on some news network. What specifically about one interview vs. another would indicate her notability? I can look for a an interview that meets the criteria you are looking for if I understood what that was. Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaselives (talk • contribs) 17:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done Good point.

Link to article in question: Zenescope Entertainment

Hi! I edited the article to remove anything that could be deemed "opinion" or "advertisement", and added further citations. Could you check it out to see if it looks okay now? it is my first article, and I am a fiction writer, so I think I got too flowery at first, haha! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taramarieflynn (talk • contribs) 17:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The article is fixed now; however, the other reason I declined the article is that the article was deleted too many times and I am unable to create the article with that name. APerson241 (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh no! How do I fix that? I don't remember deleting it at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taramarieflynn (talk • contribs) 17:56, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

It was deleted by other people in other forms, which apparently is enough to make an error message come up when I try to create the article. Try an administrator. I'm sorry. APerson241 (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

How do I contact an admin?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taramarieflynn (talk • contribs) 18:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Try the IRC help channel. APerson241 (talk!) 18:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments on our sandbox. Can you give me more specifics on where you would like to see additional citations? This is definitely a learning curve for me. I look forward to hearing back from you. Cflint1634/sandbox Cflint1634 (talk) 19:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

In my comments, I said that the article was "slightly lacking in terms of citations". By this I meant that articles on Wikipedia tend to have more than three sources; once more are added, I would be happy to accept the article. APerson241 (talk!) 19:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I've created the Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicles redirect, but you're aware that it wouldn't be necessary for the purpose of shortening links? [[Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle]]s would also produce "Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicles". Yours, Huon (talk) 18:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

		The Modest Barnstar
		For copy editing articles totalling over 2000 words during the Guild of Copy Editors June 2013 blitz, I hereby award APerson241 this Modest Barnstar. Thank you very much for your contributions! Diannaa (talk) 22:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Marquard may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ] minister, JJ Marquard, with the help of [[Christoffel Cornelis Froneman]], the commandant of the [[Orange Free State]. It was established on the farm Varschfontein and attained municipal status in

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Milan (Kurdish tribe) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• of 72 tribals. Mir Gazi was their first leader. Mir Gırd Ali beg is their current leader.<ref>[http://tr.wikitry.com/index.php/Kay%C4%B1p_prens Kayıp prens - Wiki Turkce'ye Hos Geldiniz {{Dead

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited William Estabrook Chancellor, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages America and American (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The article in question: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/gkkworks

I left an image placeholder for our logo as I couldn't upload anything until the article is published? Should I leave that out and leave blank? I thought I cited enough third party sources? What are your suggestions to have this accepted? Thanks! Juanitagkkworks (talk) 20:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

In its current form, the article has many quality issues. Try using an actual infobox for the company, at the top. I am reasonably sure that you are allowed to upload images, so try fixing all the broken images. Finally, please make the section headers into actual section headers. Feel free to re-submit this article once these issues are fixed! APerson241 (talk!) 20:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/EvoStream Media Server. I'll make the necessary adjustments and resubmit it again =)

--Iancris (talk) 03:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

First , I'm not making vandilism or that something , What i'm making is right , because this is the official flag of Syria and the other flag isn't official yet , also this flag isn't either for assad or ba'ath party , so please don't undo it again .178.61.44.13 (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree completely: your edit was vandalism mainly due to the fact that it entailed removing a significant chunk of content from the article. If your edit was backed up by a citation or two, I would happily accept it. If you want, we can take this disagreement to the dispute resolution board. APerson241 (talk!) 20:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree Or disagree or vandilism , you are syrian ? , you are welcomed to edit syrian articles , you aren't syrian , so you aren't welcomed .178.61.44.13 (talk) 20:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I would like to note the fact that your "policy" is not found anywhere on Wikipedia or its official policies. If this argument continues I would be happy to take it to the dispute resolution board so this conflict may be resolved. APerson241 (talk!) 20:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Take it .178.61.44.13 (talk) 20:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done The request was filed. You can find it at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Coat of arms of Syria. I hope this conflict is resolved in a manner satisfactory to all parties involved. APerson241 (talk!) 20:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I see that you see fit to label my edits as vandalism. Did you bother checking what is being edited? It's hard enough trying to keep a page tidy and properly sourced without you doing something like this. Hzh (talk) 21:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry; the number of things that were deleted led me to believe it was vandalism. APerson241 (talk!) 21:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems like there is a problem with STiki if it can't tell that it's not vandalism to remove the unnecessarily duplicated content of an navigational box that's already there and therefore shouldn't be placed there in the first place. Perhaps you should contact whoever is responsible for STiki about that. Hzh (talk) 22:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Spacing is right, sorry about fact. 142.162.108.84 (talk) 22:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, APerson241, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Information about STiki, including: Using STiki and its hotkeys Comparison with other tools Information about vandalism on Wikipedia Here are some pages which are a little more fun: The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users! Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes! We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and Pratyya (Hello!) 05:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I need to ask you some important Rorre09 (talk) 20:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit to Aaron Turner page: reference to collaboration with artist William Fowler Collins from Aaron Turner's page: http://aaronbturner.blogspot.com/search?q=william+fowler+collins

there additional references on the web if needed. Bloodysnakes (talk) 23:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi,

Sorry, I added the final verdict of the case in the lede while I unintentionally erased a big part of the article. My apologies for that, I didn't check. I've now added the info in the lede without destroying anything now. Best, - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 11:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey APerson241

I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).

So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.

What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.

The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.

Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Link to the relevant diff

Sorry, I forgot to cite my sources. Would it be fine if I revert back to my old post, and then cite my sources by editing it? Thanks. CountryboyCS (talk) 21:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done Sure.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Sheila Makhijani (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Kanazawa

Ten Broeck (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Lexington

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

You said on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Charles Lyman Flint that a "userbox" was important for the submission to be accepted. I think perhaps you meant "infobox" not userbox? In any case, article submissions do not require infoboxes in order to be accepted. You may wish to review the full instructions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewing instructions. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 10:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello. A bureaucrat or clerk has responded to your username change request, but requires clarification before moving forward. Please follow up at your username change request entry as soon as possible. Thank you. ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 17:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It was a save failure caused by Wikipedia that caused that. It's been fixed. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 01:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

	The Anti-Vandalism + STiki Barnstar
	Congratulations, APerson241! You're receiving this barnstar because you recently crossed the 1,000 classification threshold using STiki. We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and  Tentinator  05:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

 A m i t  ❤  02:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I resubmited the article that you rejected like you told me to, but it seems it was rejected again. You agreed it should be accepted, so what do I need to do? Kobra98 (talk) 18:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I resubmited the article that you rejected like you told me to, but it seems it was rejected again. You agreed it should be accepted, so what do I need to do? Kobra98 (talk) 18:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

You just asked this guy to add a userbox to his article. And he did. Do we need to call a psychiatrist here? --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 18:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course, I didn't mean to say userbox; I also didn't know that an infobox might not be globally regarded as a useful addition to the article. It's been removed, and you and Arthur goes shopping have already declined it. However, it may be important to note here that after I looked at that diff, I spent approximately 5 minutes laughing. Thank you for bringing this to my attention! APerson (talk!) 21:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, APerson, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Information about STiki, including: Using STiki and its hotkeys Comparison with other tools Information about vandalism on Wikipedia Here are some pages which are a little more fun: The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users! Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes! We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and Pratyya (Hello!) 05:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Link to the relevant submission

Dear APerson,

Thank you for your comments regarding the article "Larisa Matros." I would like to know more information about the criteria of reliability in this case because most of the sources I cite are in Russian. Are sources in Russian unreliable in general?

In my opinion, at least references #2, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17 in the mentioned article are reliable. Would you agree with that and if not why not?

How would you suggest improving the article - by improving the existing or by adding additional sources?

Thank you for your time and attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dserge01 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't seem to find the relevant article in my contributions page. Could you include a link to the article that you're talking about here? Thanks! APerson (talk!) 02:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It is available here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Larisa_Matros

I declined the article in question because all the comments left by previous AfC reviewers indicated problems that needed to be resolved before the article was accepted into the main article space. Some of the comments, like "There are lots of completely uncited statements in the article" and "Consider using in-line citations and, for non-English-language and non-online sources, adding brief quotations with translations", need to be addressed. APerson241 (talk!) 21:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

What about notability - has the article satisfied Wikipedia's criteria for noteability?

I guess so. However, Wikipedia's guideline on references say that linking to other Wikipedia articles, even in other languages, might be bad because it could create circular dependencies; I suggest resolving that in addition to the existing comments. APerson (talk!) 22:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

It is my understanding that I could resolve the issues in question by: 1) reducing the text of the article by eliminating those portions that are not supported by secondary sources, 2) adding some brief quotations from the already cited Russian sources so that they become more reliable and prove the points that were made. To sum up, to resolve the issues in question, one should not necessarily add additional sources to the article. Am I correct? And when I submit this article for the third time, who is going to decide whether the article is accepted or not, you or another editor? Thank you for your attention and your answers.

Yes, I believe that both of those points are true. Obviously, you've put a lot of effort into this article, and I feel like it's a pretty good article so far. When you re-submit it, the person who is going to review it is going to be whoever clicked on it in the article reviewing category. However, if you improve it as per those comments, it will almost certainly be accepted. Good luck! APerson (talk!) 21:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea exactly what you want me to do. Is there additional material that you believe needs referencing? Is there are problem with the way I did the footnotes? Please clarify. 79.181.111.214 (talk) 13:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're confused about. I do not believe that there is more material that needs to be referenced. As I said in my comment on your submitted article, you probably should add in-line citations, as a vast majority of the articles on Wikipedia are cited in that format. APerson (talk!) 22:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that I add additional in-line citations in addition to the ones that are already there????????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.111.214 (talk) 12:13, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that the in-line citations that are currently in the article are sprinkled rather sparsely throughout it. Articles of this length usually have 2 columns' worth of references, and this one only has 7. APerson (talk!) 21:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I resubmited the article that you rejected like you told me to, but it seems it was rejected again. You agreed it should be accepted, so what do I need to do? Kobra98 (talk) 18:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

You probably need to re-submit it under a different name so it won't conflict with the existing redirect. APerson (talk!) 22:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I can't change the name. To correspond with every other college football season article, that's the only name that that article can have. Kobra98 (talk) 05:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I do agree that the article should definitely be accepted. Unfortunately, I am only an AfC reviewer. To delete the redirect, you need an admin - this is because whenever regular users move pages, the original location is not deleted: a redirect is created to the destination. This means that we can't delete pages. To move the redirect out of the way so the article can be created, you need someone who can delete it (i.e. an admin). I'm sorry I can't help you further. APerson (talk!) 02:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello,

I'm sorry but I do not have any other references, other than the school's website for notability. I used a lot of government and .org websites to prove the school's legitimacy but am unable to provide references for any other content. I have looked far and wide, but there just isn't much about it.

Trying to accomplish what they did, it's the same exact thing..? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Career_CollegeSuccessedu (talk) 01:59, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, WP:NOTESSAY has to do with injecting personal opinions into an article. While the article as it stands certainly has issues (some of which I contributed), that's not one of them. If I had to guess I'd say you were objecting the WP:TONE, which should be easy enough to fix.

Not a big deal; this is an article I've helped to rescue and I'm happy to make another couple of passes through it.

And thanks for reviewing at AFC. The backlog is nowhere near where it used to be, and that's a Good Thing.

Best,

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 03:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

What's wrong about my edit ? I only completed the title of the South African chart reference I added before ! It's not vandalism at all ! Synthwave.94 (talk) 11:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry - I was not really paying attention as I was going through the STiki backlog. The problem was that I had recently declined a bunch of edits that included stuff like "IIIIIIIIMMMMMMMM SOOOOOOOOOOOO FABEWLUSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!111!!!!" and when I saw your edit that included "Everybody Wants to Rule the World", I thought "Not another one" and marked it. I do apologize for not looking more closely at what I was rejecting. APerson (talk!) 21:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedia reviewer,

Please let me know the reasons of your rejection. The article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/CECED is supported by three Financial Times article, one International Herald Tribune, one article from Revue Général du Froid, plus articles from Euractive and Appliance Magazine. All of them satisfy the criteria for independence, reliability and trustworthiness. Paolo from fab (talk) 06:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paolo from fab (talk • contribs) 06:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Let me start by congratulating you on an article well written. However, the sources you use have many issues. When I clicked on the links provided in the references, all 3 Financial Times articles were inaccessible without a paid subscription, the International Herald Tribune article and 2 other references didn't even provide a link, and the Euractiv thing didn't exist (404). If I were to remove everything referenced by one of these sources, there wouldn't be a lot left. I suggest finding more sources, especially ones that are supported by Google Search's cache. (Click on the arrow, then "Cached" to find an archived version of the page that you can copy and paste into the relevant Cite Toolbar field.) APerson (talk!) 21:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

North-West College (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Riverside, Pasadena, Glendale and Private

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi I edited Nitzans page again. Please accept it {EliaBerger (talk) 14:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)}

Thank you for your comments on the article regarding "Force Therapeutics." Here is the link to the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Force_Therapeutics.

I would like a little more specific clarification on your comments so that an attempt to edit the article may yield a successful post. You noted that the post read like an advertisement, but I only paraphrased what the authors presented. Can these issues be resolved by simply altering the language used or is the problem more source-based?

Also, with sources in mind, I was wondering why the source material presented fails to satisfy notability. With exception of the attribution to the company site, all of the sources are independent of the company and collectively provide enough coverage on the subject from a numbers standpoint to deem it notable.

This is my first attempt at an article so maybe there are some things I'm just not seeing. Looking forward to your feedback.

O obineche (talk) 17:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry I took a little while to get back to you. Your submitted article does read a little like an advertisement - meaning that the entire content of the article consists of a brief history of the company and a description of the products and services offered by it. Wikipedia's general style manual says that editors should try to make articles that go beyond just a relatively small number of content areas. TL;DR: Please add a little bit more content - your article is pretty good as it is, but it could be a little better. APerson (talk!) 22:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Could you please provide a bit more specific comments on why the article "Icephobicity" was declined? The comments says:

"This submission reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article. Submissions should summarise information in secondary, reliable sources and not contain opinions or original research. Please write about the topic from a neutral point of view in an encyclopedic manner."

However, the submission DOES summarize the secondary reliable sources (see references), DOES NOT contain opinions or original research and writes about the topic from a neutral point of view. Could you please provide more specifics on which parts of the article read more like an essay than an encyclopedia article? That would help a lot. I wrote and edited in the past articles for various encyclopedias and handbooks (e.g., Springer's Encyclopedia of Nanotechnology) and in my opinion this submission is in an encyclopedic manner. However, I am new in Wikipedia and may misunderstand standards here. So, if you could please provide more comments to me, that would be of great help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duchifat (talk • contribs) 08:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Let me start by saying that so far, you have created a great article. The decline reason that both myself and another editor used is that your article reads like an article that would be found in, for example, a magazine or newspaper. Wikipedia's "articles" are a little different: our articles tend to be broken up into sections, each one of which talks about a specific aspect of the subject. Your article reads like a continuous description. While this is great, the style of Wikipedia in general doesn't really fit that pattern. Therefore, you probably should just break the article up into sections and fragment it a little. Thanks for all the time you put into this article! APerson (talk!) 22:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Pallithode

Thank you for the review. I will be very grateful if you could guide me a little. The subject is notable and worthy of inclusion. I will work on improving the references. Thank you for the links. Any other tips abot the referencing would be welcome. Best. (Scleatus (talk) 22:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC))

Well, your sources generally are good sources - they talk about the subject. However, the problem lies in how they don't talk about the subject's notability. What is this subject famous for? The article should answer that question. Nice article so far, though. APerson (talk!) 22:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and the prompt response. I have understood what you have said. And it is correct. None of the of the citations/references recommend the place. They seem only matter of fact. Will you be kind enough help by suggesting some examples of how to bring out the notabilty. I know it is there. Sorry to be such toddler!! Will be obliged for some support. Best. (Scleatus (talk) 23:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC))

It's no problem - I want to see the best possible articles created in Wikipedia. One suggestion is you could try finding sources that help the article conform with the Wikipedia notability policy for places, using the tool that I just commented on the article with. APerson (talk!) 23:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I will do that . I Hope you will not mind me asking for help if there are some issues I find difficult. Thanks again.All the best. (Scleatus (talk) 23:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC))

I hope your article gets created - good luck! APerson (talk!) 00:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Dear APerson,

Thank you for your comments regarding the article "Larisa Matros." I would like to know more information about the criteria of reliability in this case because most of the sources I cite are in Russian. Are sources in Russian unreliable in general? In my opinion, at least references #2, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17 in the mentioned article are reliable. Would you agree with that and if not why not? How would you suggest improving the article - by improving the existing or by adding additional sources? Thank you for your time and attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dserge01 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't seem to find the relevant article in my contributions page. Could you include a link to the article that you're talking about here? Thanks! APerson (talk!) 02:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It is available here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Larisa_Matros

I declined the article in question because all the comments left by previous AfC reviewers indicated problems that needed to be resolved before the article was accepted into the main article space. Some of the comments, like "There are lots of completely uncited statements in the article" and "Consider using in-line citations and, for non-English-language and non-online sources, adding brief quotations with translations", need to be addressed. APerson241 (talk!) 21:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

What about notability - has the article satisfied Wikipedia's criteria for noteability?

I guess so. However, Wikipedia's guideline on references say that linking to other Wikipedia articles, even in other languages, might be bad because it could create circular dependencies; I suggest resolving that in addition to the existing comments. APerson (talk!) 22:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

It is my understanding that I could resolve the issues in question by: 1) reducing the text of the article by eliminating those portions that are not supported by secondary sources, 2) adding some brief quotations from the already cited Russian sources so that they become more reliable and prove the points that were made. To sum up, to resolve the issues in question, one should not necessarily add additional sources to the article. Am I correct? And when I submit this article for the third time, who is going to decide whether the article is accepted or not, you or another editor? Thank you for your attention and your answers.

Yes, I believe that both of those points are true. Obviously, you've put a lot of effort into this article, and I feel like it's a pretty good article so far. When you re-submit it, the person who is going to review it is going to be whoever clicked on it in the article reviewing category. However, if you improve it as per those comments, it will almost certainly be accepted. Good luck! APerson (talk!) 21:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dserge01 (talk • contribs)

I made the changes that you recommended for the article and submitted it for publication. It is available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Larisa_Matros

I would appreciate it if you would review the revised version of the article since you know the history.

APerson (talk!) 22:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments for the article on Centre for Land Warfare Studies. I have made formatting and compliance changes to the article. Looking forward to your reviews and comments. I hope I was able to reduce your work burden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raveenjanu (talk • contribs) 08:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

You did a great job of writing that article. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia - that was a great article! However, the one last thing that probably needs to be fixed up a little is the fact that your sources are a little bit lacking - many of the things that you link to in "External Links" would make great sources. APerson (talk!) 22:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your guidance. I have made the changes that you had pointed out. I hope they are up to the mark and the article is of acceptable quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raveenjanu (talk • contribs) 05:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Are there any other sources that establish the notability of that organization? Your sources seem a little bit heavy on websites that just talk about the subject. What is the subject famous for? APerson (talk!) 01:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I have made the changes to include web references in respect of the following: a) Mandate of CLAWS as endorsed by Indian Army- Directorate of PP; b) Areas of expertise as advocated by Integrated Defence Staff of Indian Army; c) Prominent National newspapers take on CLAWS as a renowned defence think tank of India; and d) Critical research work done by CLAWS. For example Kargil War study which generated wide spread public debate. Please let me know if the above references in the article are acceptable and whether more is needed from my side. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raveenjanu (talk • contribs) 14:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You did an excellent job fixing it up! This is a really good article. I accepted it. APerson (talk!) 22:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I noticed you asked Tim for push access. I would grant you push access, but you have not contributed any code to the script. I don't really know why you need it. If you would like to contribute code, please first fork the script and use pull requests to merge in the code. After you have a few of those under your belt, I'll give you push access. Thanks for your help testing, though! --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 16:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The article in question Thank you for your comments on the Invisible Dead project. You have said that the submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. I wonder if you could elaborate a little, since I have responded to a previous rejection on the same basis by introducing all of the referencing available from Durham University websites, which is currently the only available source for the information. All of the information available in the article is supported in those sources.

Are the Durham University website entries not considered reliable?

I have looked at other Archaeological Project pages and the referencing is variable, depending on what stage the project is at.

Thanks for your help. ArchSciWoman (talk) 08:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The policy that Wikipedia has, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, says that articles should be based on third-party sources. Your article is entirely based on sources pulled from one website that is affiliated with the subject. Furthermore, the Wikipedia:Notability guideline says that to have an article of its own, something must be the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. The article in question has no such sources. For information about the project, yes, the Durham University website entries are considered reliable. For proving that the subject is notable, no, they are not considered reliable. APerson (talk!) 21:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what you mean.

Significant coverage To count as "significant coverage", a cited reference must be about the subject – addressing the subject directly in detail, and more than a trivial mention. Passing mentions don't count, directory listings don't count, any old thing that happens to have the name of the subject in it doesn't count. Furthermore, several of these good references are required, not just one, to show that the subject of the article meets the Wikipedia requirement of being notable.

All of my cited references are directly addressing the subject, including Ref. 4 (Observation of DSW) and Ref. 5, a 20 page review article entirely devoted to the subject.

Reliable sources A "reliable source" is something that is generally trusted to tell the truth. A major newspaper, a factual, widely-published book, high-quality mainstream publications with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy: these are all what Wikipedia calls "reliable". Not reliable: Facebook, LinkedIn, MySpace, Twitter, fansites, wikis (including Wikipedia), forums, most blogs, and most YouTube videos. There must be reliable sources for the content of the article to meet the Wikipedia requirement of being verifiable.

I do not have any references do blogs, forums, or Youtube. All of my sources are articles issuing from many Universities in US and Europe and published in leading physical journals, such as Physical Review Letter, Applied Physics Letters, Electromagnetics, etc.

Independent Nothing written by the subject, paid for by the subject, or affiliated with the subject can be considered "independent". Anything on the subject's website, and any press release issued by the subject, are examples of sources that are not independent. Such sources cannot be used to support the case that there should be a Wikipedia article about the subject, because they fail the Wikipedia requirement of being independent.

I don't see why articles published in leading scientific journals by several different research groups around the world cannot be considered as independent.

What you can do: Add citations (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners) to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject.

I don't quite understand what is the "subject" and what does independent of the subject mean in the present (scientific) context. The article is about the phenomenon of "Dyakonov Surface Waves" which, in contrast to various other types of surface waves, has not been covered in Wikipedia so far.

Your comment is: Comment: Probably needs a little bit more sources.

I have added Ref. 12, another review article. I could have added dozens more sources, by I do not think that it is needed since these references are contained in the reviews [5] and [12].

Please tell me if I have to make any more modifications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baurelius (talk • contribs) 17:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

All of your points are valid, so I guess I was probably rushing when I reviewed the article. I would like to accept your article, but another reviewer will probably do that instead of me because of conflict of interest. Thank you for the time and effort you put into your article! APerson (talk!) 21:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

ATDD is not the same as TDD. I added a section that explains the differences between the two. Kpugh (talk) 18:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You probably should add more than one source in that paragraph that specifically states that the two are different. APerson (talk!) 21:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review the article on Carrick Capital Partners. Could you share your insight into any objective criteria to adhere to in showing the notability of a private equity firm? I modeled this page after a page on a peer firm, Vista Equity Partners, and I am unclear on what separates the two in terms of worthiness for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Thanks for your help! Nlxndrdlv (talk) 14:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, looking at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), your article is definitely good in terms of independent, third-party sources. However, your article probably needs more sources that establish the notability of the subject of the article. For example, what is the company famous for? Why should it have an article on Wikipedia? The subject of the article should be noticed by many independent sources. By the way, thank you for the work you have done on the article so far! APerson (talk!) 22:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments submitted for the article Propeople. I have made the requested changes to the article, made it more neutral. Besides that all the resources are trustworthy and reliable, as they have been created independently from Propeople. Any of this resources has not been produced about Propeople.

Please help us how can we made it better, maybe there some things we should add or remove. What let you consider it an advertisement (excluding resources)?

Thank in advance for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iulia e (talk • contribs) 09:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

You should probably look at the Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) to see what your article needs to prove using its sources. If you have further questions, feel free to ask me. Thank you for the time and effort you have already put into the article! APerson (talk!) 22:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The edit I made was not unconstructive at Delta Connection destinations. Mesaba Airlines is no longer operating at all and Aspen service is resuming December 21, 2013. 68.119.73.36 (talk) 03:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm facebook friends with him. Would linking to his status update be fitting? Not sure if you consider that a reliable source or not. deltawing12 (talk)

Probably not - social networking sites are not considered reliable sources. Feel free to include other sources that provide similar information, like a news story on him or something. APerson (talk!) 22:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Hope you remember our interactions some days back about this article. I have tried to follow your advice and revise the article accordingly. Kindly have a look. It is at the link given above. I am grateful for your help. Thank you. The best. (Scleatus (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC))

When I first saw the new version, I thought "Whoa, that's a good article". It is. There is just a few small things about the article that probably should be resolved. First, you really shouldn't use other Wikipedia articles as sources - instead, cite the source used by the other article. This helps to avoid circular references. Second, in the article you do an excellent job of references. However, is there any coverage in major news sources about the subject? Those should probably be added in. Other than that, good job! I'm looking forward to this article maybe even being a good article (technical term). APerson (talk!) 22:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments and suggestions. I have replaced the Wikipedia reference with orginial source and cited coverage in National News Paper/Media where available. The new version is at the link above. Thanks again.Your help was timely and appreciated. Can I go ahead and resubmit now. The best. (Scleatus (talk) 17:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC))

The article looks amazing - definitely! APerson (talk!) 21:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your help and encouragement. I have resubmitted the article now.It is at the link above. All the best. (Scleatus (talk) 01:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC))

to stop the vandalism from this public ip please block it from making edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.221.67.101 (talk) 21:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Which IP are you talking about? APerson (talk!) 22:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not the right person to ask about this. You should try a admin at WP:ANI. Thanks! APerson (talk!) 22:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

	The Anti-Vandalism + STiki Barnstar
	Congratulations, APerson! You're receiving this barnstar because you recently crossed the 1,000 classification threshold using STiki. We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool. We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and -- t numbermaniac c 06:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Ref : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/World_Development_Foundation

I have provided reliable references from Govt. of India, Media Lab Asia, reputed news papers, UNESCO site and also referred the site of World Development Foundation, where there is written evidence of partnership with Media Lab Asia, Ministry of IT (India)etc. I shall be grateful if you let me know where I am committing error.

Regards, Rupali

Rupalisharma (talk) 07:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I am reaching out to let you know I resubmitted the entry for Ben Schwartz. You had rejected the submission due to lack of notability, however the entry meets the necessary notability criteria.

For instance, Ben Schwartz:

- has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources including CNBC, the New York Times, BBC, the Washington Post, and CNN Money which are all reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject

- under "Additional Criteria," his firm received numerous awards significant to his industry most recently including "Best for Frequent Traders" in Barron's 2013 Best Online Brokers Survey

- primary sources reflect his current position and his various commentaries across multiple reliable news outlets showing his notability in his specific field

Please let me know if I can provide further information. Thank you.

Chris

Cmulka11 (talk) 18:02, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The reason that I declined your article is because the sources in it did not meet Wikipedia's minimum citation guidelines. In other words, the sources do not prove the notability of the subject. Feel free to re-submit it after adding more sources that fit this guideline. APerson (talk!) 13:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Did your kid hop on your computer and vandalise Category:Pending AfC submissions? Note the diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category%3APending_AfC_submissions&diff=567554640&oldid=555459826 . MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh boy. That definitely wasn't me; I changed my password just to be sure. There were no other edits from that time period. APerson (talk!) 00:45, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Trying to resubmit this. Is it references to notable pieces that I need to include? Or are there other issues? Thanks in advance for the feedback. Luvartanddesign (talk) 13:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The sources which you provided do not completely prove the notability of the subject. The article probably needs more references from independent, reliable sources. APerson (talk!) 14:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you please let me know specifically what else needs references on this article? I feel like everything I wrote is supported by provided evidence. Linkwray (talk) 14:38, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Your article, although very good so far, seems to be lacking sources from news organizations and/or reliable sources that are independent of the subject (at least one of which is mandated by the WP:RS guideline.) Like you said, your content is supported by sources, but the notability needs a very small amount of work. Thank you for your work so far! APerson (talk!) 14:48, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

{{Resolved|I accidentally submitted this article under myself.}} APerson (talk!) 00:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Note to people reading this: I accidentally submitted the article as myself. Thanks! APerson (talk!) 22:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

{{Resolved|Copyedit performed.}} APerson (talk!) 00:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Could you help me with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Requests&diff=567979792&oldid=567967737  ??

I'm needing a copyedit for César Cielo article. I have 7 days or this GA will fail... Rauzaruku (talk) 20:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Will do as soon as I have some free time. APerson (talk!) 22:16, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Rauzaruku (talk) 23:17, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

{{Resolved|I accidentally submitted this under myself.}} APerson (talk!) 00:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

{{Resolved|Article was created.}} APerson (talk!) 00:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello

This was submitted on the 3rd of August. It has not been accepted yet. Do I need to do anything.

Thank you. (Scleatus (talk) 10:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC))

Nope - I accepted it. Thank you for your work on it! APerson (talk!) 00:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Look, let's get something straight, ok? There is no refrerence regarding Blip. There should be mention of Frank Tashlin as the short is identical to his shorts where books came to life. The storefront is a colorised version of the one seen in A Coy Decoy. There shouldn't be two links to It Had to Be You. The Arkansas Traveler shouldn't be bracketed and the Melody in 4F is a redlink. Visokor (talk) 08:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

thank you for reviewing my AfC submission Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Joyou. You declined it for its notability not being adequately supported by reliable sources. Would you please give me some more info on that? I put a lot of effort in this article so I'd really like to learn how to complete it.

I referenced Reuters, Bloomberg, Financial Times, Businessweek and Kbbreview which I consider serious and independent sources so I guess this is not about my sources but their content. I read Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) again closely and still consider the coverage to be sufficient. Please have a look at the FT article (found a login-free copy here. What's missing?

Thank you for taking the time.

Cheers, --Pfandtasse (talk) 14:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

You have done a great job so far on the article. To be honest, I probably declined it for the wrong reason; your sources are fine (for the most part - referencing the subject's own website is great for information about the subject but not so great for proving notability), but your article reads kind of like an advertisement. To prevent this impression, you probably shouldn't have 110 words out of a 483-page article dedicated to an ad-like list of the products sold by the manufacturer. While you could argue that the subject is notable because of its IPO, many of the reliable sources you cite consist of extremely short articles consisting of a single transaction (Bloomberg, Businessweek), dry fact sheets on the company (Reuters), or articles that are inaccessible to the general public (Financial Times, although you should definitely cite that PDF you linked me to instead of the URL). Maybe you could add more references from similarly reliable, independent sources? Thanks! APerson (talk!) 19:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

In follow-up to your reason for my article being declined on August 8, 2013, stating that the submissions references do not adequately evidence the subject’s notability, I submit the following response. The subject (Mr. Hezekiah Leonard Clark, Jr.) set National, International and World records as a Champion Shooter. He has been recognized in the United States and Switzerland because of his expertise and notability as a Champion Shooter.

In addition, he was a member of the gold-medalist teams in free pistol and center fire pistol, (set a new world’s record, earned two gold and one silver medal), and was silver medalist in the center fire pistol individual competition as evidenced in the 1972 United States Olympic Book. He was congratulated by the Lieutenant Governor of the State of Louisiana and the Executive Director of the National Rifle Association for the many records he set as a Champion Shooter. This is only a synopsis of what is in the submitted article but this appears to evidence why he is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia (Wikipedia).

In addressing the reliable sources pertaining to citations/references, all of my sources are verifiable. I cited the name of the newspapers, the city and state where the newspapers were located, the name of the article, author’s name, date, and the page numbers where applicable. I have copies of all the referenced articles outlined in the submission and know that they can be reviewed and verified.

If there is something I do not understand, please explain further. Thank you for your assistance. Elaine58 (talk) 22:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I probably used the wrong decline reason; I apologize. I should have used the reason from the previous reviewer - my point is that references should be verifiable by others, and I doubt that the average Wikipedia reader/contributor that wants to verify some references has access to the U.S. Army Newspaper. If you add links to some or all of the references you use, then the article would be perfect. For example, "noblenational.org" or "U.S. Department of Defense" are not references; a specific URL to the source with a title and access information is a reference. Thank you for all the time and effort you have put into the article so far. APerson (talk!) 22:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

{{Resolved|Article already created.}} APerson (talk!) 16:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello

Thank you your help. The best. (Scleatus (talk) 02:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC))

Can you help me understand why my sources aren't reliable? I read the requirements and the article seems to meet them? Can you be more specific so I can improve the article appropriately? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by RebeccaClancy (talk • contribs) 13:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

First, thank you for your work on the article. It actually looks really good now (w/o the massive list of publications), but the main issue I see is that you seem to have sufficient, albeit on the low side, sources that you can cite about content, but the article seems to be lacking in terms of sources that prove notability. To be notable, something has to be the subject of multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. The personal website of the subject is not independent of him, so that can't prove notability; neither can a book written by him; so you have only two secondary sources that talk about the subject. Feel free to re-submit this article when you have more secondary sources. Thanks! APerson (talk!) 17:50, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

{{Resolved|Article will be created.}} APerson (talk!) 18:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Again, and thank you for your comments. Before I edited my article, I actually did study very carefully articles of other theologians who were the colleagues of Ronald Goetz, like George Hunsinger, Douglas Moo, Leon Morris, D.A. Carson, and Donald Bloesch. None of these articles refer to any literature extraneous to what these scholars actually produced. Has Wikipedia tightened its guidelines? I will try to find external references to his work, but to me at least, notability for a theologian is determined by how many articles and books he or she publishes – if a major publisher or journal is willing to publish a theologian’s books and articles after peer review, then the person is indeed notable from the standpoint of the discipline. I would be grateful for your input. Rebecca Clancy — Preceding unsigned comment added by RebeccaClancy (talk • contribs) 13:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Good point. Just re-submit it and I will try to accept it. APerson (talk!) 18:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Aperson, i was wondering how i could make my page seem like less of an advertisement? It's not intended to be one at all. I tried to add as many links as possible to ensure credibility. Thanks! Ilenelewis626 (talk) 07:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)ilenelewis626

Well, some context about the company itself would be helpful. It seems like most of the content of the article is a list of the awards which the company has won - which is great, but you also need sources that reference the notability of the subject of the article. By the way, thank you for your work on the article so far! APerson (talk!) 00:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. Please have a look at my talk page for an answer

Talkback removed APerson (talk!) 00:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

{{Resolved|Article was accepted.}} APerson (talk!) 01:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your time with my article. As per the comment from "Arctic Kangaroo," I deleted Reference #11 (the source has changed their website since I started my research and my placement is no longer on their homepage). Is that all that was necessary? I know many of my sources are hard-copy, not online (though all legitimate). I was unclear if this was an issue. Thank you for your work!! RedwarblerRedwarbler (talk) 21:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it looks good now. APerson (talk!) 01:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

APerson (talk!) 18:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking the time to revise my article on Carles and Sofia piano duo. I am new using Wikipedia so I will appreciate your help as I am planning to publish some more entries after this. In order to make my best attempt on this firs article, I have been assist by other senior wikipedians, and I’ve taken my time to study in-dept other biographies in Wikipedia from other music artists both famous and not, and I took them as a model regarding their style , redaction techniques and structure.

I tried my best and I have to confess at this point I feel lost and I don’t really know how to make the appropriate changes. For that reason I would really appreciate if you could help me improve the article so that it could be approved.

First of all the banner said the article didn’t seem to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Could you please be so kind to specify what sentences of paragraphs present tonality problems so that I could try to fix them?

I have also tried to maintain a neutral point of view by not making direct judgments and justifying every statement with a reliable reference. Could you please also help me identify which sentences should be reviewed to make the article from a totally neutral point of view?

The sources I’ve used are mainly secondary and most of them are from media. Maybe you could also clarify which sources aren’t considered appropriate in terms of being independent, reliable, published. And finally there is also an alert regarding the use of “peacock” terms. I want to clarify that any opinionated or “flattery” adjective I might have included I put it after finding an external reliable source where it was said. It will also help me a lot if you could help me with this point.

In order to make the reviewing process as efficient as possible, I would really appreciate if you could specify which sentences or paragraphs need to be rewritten in order to have a good wikipedia article.

I what to thank you very much in advance for taking the time to revise my submission and for giving me guidance to make a very good article.

Kind regards, Littleparrot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleparrot (talk • contribs) 07:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, you have obviously put a lot of time and effort into this article - thank you for your contributions to this project. The sorts of sentences that other reviewers and myself find to be red flags tend to be words featured in WP:WEASEL (weasel words) and WP:PEACOCK (peacock words). To put it another way, phrases like "Carles & Sofia are best well-known and acclaimed" do not really lend themselves to scholarly descriptions of the subject. In the article, you say "Carles & Sofia have declared a great passion for educating the younger generation" and then cite it by referencing YouTube (which isn't a reliable source, by the way.) Not to imply that all of your sources are unreliable: some of them are quite good, but Amazon and iTunes (which you cite a lot) are also not reliable. In sum, your article is very good but some of the advertisement-like features should be removed. Thanks! APerson (talk!) 19:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind response and your helpful support. Your comment helped me a lot understanding what needs to be reviewed. I will make the appropriate changes and will resubmit it again. Thanks for your contribution. Littleparrot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleparrot (talk • contribs) 10:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

APerson (talk!) 18:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Please can you clarify whether you declined the article linked below because the subject is not notable enough, or becuase the references do not support his notability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Michael_Roderick_Oliver

I was advised on Live Help Chat that the references were strong - several extended mentions in the editorial voice of national newspapers.

Any detail on your reasons for declining the article would be most welcome.

Thank you

John Bowes 1983 (talk) 08:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on the article so far! While your article has plenty of sources for the content of the article, the article does not seem to have enough sources to prove the WP:NOTABILITY of the subject. You definitely can re-submit it once more sources like those are added. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me! APerson (talk!) 16:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for your feedback. Below are five more sources from reputable business and national publications - one of them in Canada - which reference Michael Oliver in varying degrees of detail. I would be greatful if you could have a quick look at them and let me know whether you think they might be enough to push the article over the line in terms of notability.

• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/festival-of-business/9489451/Engineer-calls-for-tax-breaks-for-exporters.html
• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/festival-of-business/10189237/Find-the-right-partner-to-be-an-exporting-success.html
• http://realbusiness.co.uk/article/5932-how-to-get-on-the-sunday-times-rich-list
• http://news.sky.com/story/13587/britains-rich-enjoying-record-wealth
• http://www2.canada.com/windsorstar/news/story.html?id=38c97785-9aa1-4f9c-be71-b949017f3f44

Thanks in advance for your help. John Bowes 1983 (talk) 17:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, those are definitely sources that would make the subject notable. Thank you again for your work on the article! APerson (talk!) 18:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice - much appreciated. I have added the additional references to the article and re-submitted. Hopefully you now feel that Michael Oliver merits a small entry in the encyclopedia. I look forward to feedback on the improved version, whether from yourself or a fellow editor. John Bowes 1983 (talk) 13:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Dear APerson,

I thank you for your comments on the talk page. This is the third time I have failed to bring the articles to the level to satisfy the criteria of wikipedia.

The organization is doing lot of innovative jobs to help the farming community in India which is really very poor and starvation death has taken in many places. WDF is trying to harness the benefit of ICT and mass media to educate this section of the society. It has been pioneer in using community radio to reach them apart from using video films, live shows, video conferencing etc. It implemented two big projects in association of Govt. of India.It has been working as a partner with Media Lab Asia, Govt of India, TCIL (Govt of India) and has been closely assocated with UNESCO / Govt of India etc in deciding the norms and use of Community Radio for underpriveledged.

I have given some very reliable references such as coverage by The Telegraph (Calcutta) India, Oneindia.in News, Confederation of Indian Industry, IBNLive / PTI Press Trust of India, etc.

Pl help me in addressing the issue and advise me a bit.

Regards.

Rupalisharma (talk) 09:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC) 13/08/13

Those four sources you name give the subject somewhat tangential mentions. Feel free to re-submit it once you can demonstrate, using citations from independent (i.e. not from the website of the subject), reliable sources, that the WDF has had a significant impact. Not to say that it has not had an impact, but you probably need to prove it using sources. APerson (talk!) 18:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I am wondering how this article got past the review. I find it to be an unambiguous spam page. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 12:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry - I must not have been paying much attention to the actual content of the article. Thank you very much for your edits cleaning up the article - it is much better now. APerson (talk!) 18:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Please be careful when working the "AfC pages without an AFC banner" log. You appeared to use the "Submit as last non-bot editor" option here and tagged me as the submitter which is not right as I added a AFC draft banner and removed the defect category. I've moved the AFC submitter to the page creator and moved the AFC decline that landed on my page over to the right user, but please be more careful. Hasteur (talk) 13:04, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

	The AFC Backlog Buster Barnstar
	Congratulations, APerson! You're receiving The AFC Barnstar because you reviewed 185 articles during the recent AFC Backlog elimination drive! Thank you for you contributions to Wikipedia at-large and helping to keep the backlog down. We hope you continue reviewing submissions and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! Mdann52 (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

You incorrectly undid my revision to the page claiming it was not constructive. I removed the "mission" since it is not in fact the organization's mission. The entry is unsourced and incorrect and has no place on the page, and I am removing it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.101.216.16 (talk) 02:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

TDD and ATDD are two different, but related topics. I added a paragraph that describes the differences between ATDD and TDD.

ATDD falls in the upper left corner of Brian Marick's testing quadrant. TDD falls in the lower left corner.

(See http://blog.testing-whiz.com/2012/02/four-quadrants-of-agile-testing.html)

For some reason, the talk page for the link below does not go to my talk page, even though it exists. I'm not sure why.

Kpugh (talk) 14:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)kpugh

Alright; the article looks very good now. Just re-submit it, and I'll accept it. Thanks! APerson (talk!) 17:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your post of The Technical Barnstar!--Aashaa (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello! Due to a security update to the wiki software, older versions of STiki are no longer functional. You've been identified as a user of STiki, and are kindly asked to upgrade to the current version at Wikipedia:STiki#Download before continuing with use of the tool. Continuing to use older versions will be detrimental to the STiki project. Please see Wikipedia talk:STiki#Errors for a discussion of this issue or to respond to this message. Thank you! 04:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello APerson,

I am curious why you did not find my recent addition to Bill Koch's page constructive since it is his newest company that further exemplifies his love for western culture and the state of Colorado.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Koch_(businessman)

Please let me know how I can change it to be more constructive.

Thank you,

BarbaraPlatts — Preceding unsigned comment added by BarbaraPlatts (talk • contribs) 19:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC Reviewer permission. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:01, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

You declined an article 30 seconds before I did! I'm a)honored by the timing and b)fortified by knowing that I would have taken the same action you did. (Respect! Learned how to review by looking at many of yours.)JSFarman (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm honored. Thanks! (Maybe a barnstar...?) APerson (talk!) 18:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing my article. You asked me "Add citations to secondary reliable sources that are entirely independent of the subject". Pretty much all the sources I used are from Allkpop and Soompi which are secondary reliable sources that are entire independent of the subject. Many famous groups such as EXO, Super Junior, Girl's Generation, 2NE1 etc. all used citations from these sources. Thanks again :) if there is anything else wrong please tell me and I'll fix it  SmileBlueJay97  talk  11:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The article is currently a very good article. The only problems I found are that you don't cite any sources for the Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Seventeen (band)#Music Video and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Seventeen (band)#Movie sections, and that aside from the paragraph in the lead, you don't mention background information about the band (i.e. history, etc.) Thank you for your work on the article! APerson (talk!) 16:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I totally forgot about the music video and movies. Thanks for reminding me! I can't find legit references for the MVs. Is it okay for me to link to the music video itself?  SmileBlueJay97  talk  13:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

It depends; most Wikipedia editors don't think YouTube counts as a reliable source. However, if you have a news story that mentions their music videos, you should definitely reference that. Linking to one of the music videos to prove that it exists (e.g. "They have music videos"<ref>A link to a video</ref>) might work, depending on the video platform. APerson (talk!) 14:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

{{Resolved|Article was created.}} APerson (talk!) 18:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your review and comment left on the article page. I've got some query regarding rejection, not complaining, I'm kind of confused actually. Your comment is as follow: An article of this length needs more sources.. It already have 32 reliable references(WP:REF, WP:RELY), and inline citations(WP:INTEGRITY), and mostly books as reference with urls(WP:SOURCELINKS) excluding 6 external links, thought that would be enough to support texts of the article. I invite you to highlight the specific one of the listed source falls under WP:SPS, WP:NOTRS, WP:QS. And if there's some written text WP:UNSOURCED, please highlight. If you guess, some more inline citations should not be done to make it more verifiable, please tag the context or the specific line with the available template(s). Does Wikipedia talks about, some specific size of a article demands/needs some specific number of references? If yes, please redirect me to that wiki project page, as you did not mention it in your comment left on the article. What does matter, is perhaps whether sources are reliable or not or are there enough inline citations or not, respective to the claims made or the article is written not as an advertisement or essay or biased. I invite/want/request you to guide me what section(s) or sentence(s) should be deleted in order to resize it to bring it under 32 referenced size article category. Does Wikipedia talks about some minimum and maximum length of words, one article should or must carry? If yes, then please direct me to that project page. I'm looking forward at you to highlight, if there some sources are not reliable or inline citations not done to particular historical incident or claim. There are tons of article having zero references or some references but zero inline citations. Just like, ABCD is a village in the XYZ country. I asked it to peoples at wiki IRC help channel. They said, they are created before AfC. Yeah most of them are created before AfC, but not all. I've been tagging those articles as unreferenced, reachng them through using wiki random feature, you can inspect them under my contribution history, if you want to. This is what I am confused of, of this double standard wiki policy. Just tell me number of words/sections/sentences i need to delete to make it what a 32 referenced article should be. Thanks. AnupMehra ^✈ 17:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on the article so far. The only sourcing problems that I see with the article right now are the final few sections, which are somewhat low on sources. Your third to last content section is composed entirely of one long quote; you might want to explain it a little and/or add some context. Also, even though the article does have a large number of references, the considerable size of the article (not to say it's a bad thing) means that you probably need to find enough sources to give each section around 5 references. Thanks! APerson (talk!) 18:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Revisit the article page just to make sure if that length of article has enough source(s). I made it 86 from 32. Am i supposed to click re-submit now and hope it to be created? AnupMehra ^✈ 22:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you should click "Re-submit" now. Thanks! APerson (talk!) 12:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

{{Resolved|Article was created.}}

Dear APerson,

I cut the references to YouTube and Vimeo video, although the YouTube was simply a redaction of a BBC clip, perhaps I need the actual BBC link and not the YouTube link? The Vimeo video is an important source of information as it is the actual founders of the Women For the Wall group speaking at a media briefing, is there any way it can be used on Wiki? Maybe if it is sourced by a news source?

I would like to change the title to: "Women For The Wall: Traditionalist Women, Western Wall, Jerusalem" in order to differentiate it from the WoW title. (I do not know how to make this change.)

I hope these changes are satisfactory so the page can finally be posted! Becky613 (talk) 21:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I moved the page to the title you requested. If it's that essential, I guess the Vimeo source can stay. If it is possible to find the BBC clip, then that would be great; otherwise, another source that says the same thing might have to be used. Thanks! APerson (talk!) 22:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I see your point about YouTube clips, but the Vimeo video is a primary source with both the W4W group and the WoW group presenting their sides at a media briefing with journalists present. I hope you can approve of using it as a footnote.

Thanks for your help making a new title - I have another technical problem. Below the numbered footnotes, I have footnotes that I posted before I formatted the article and I cannot erase them without erasing all the footnotes. They include YouTube clips. Any advice on removing just those foornotes that have no number?

I would like to use the Vimeo video as one footnote, cut those non-numbered footnotes (please tell me how), then re-submit, once I have the green light from you. (I put it at footnote number 41, under "Rosh Chodesh Sivan", June 6 2013.) Many thanks for your help! Becky613 (talk) 04:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Waiting for your response, hoppe you get beck on Wiki soon! Becky613 (talk) 19:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it looks great. Thank you for your work on the article! APerson (talk!) 19:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I cut the YouTube clips and have re-submitted the article. The message states that submission may take three weeks. I am hoping that, since you have already looked over the article, that you can help speed the process of submission along. Thanks for your helpBecky613 (talk)

I like the article in its present state. I removed those references at the non-numbered footnotes and condensed the citations to Vimeo into one footnote. At this point, I think the only thing preventing the article from creation is the "History" section (formerly named "Time line". All of the events in the section should have a specified date. Otherwise, the article is great! APerson (talk!) 18:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help in fixing the page. I added the dates in English under the "Rosh Chodesh" ("First of the(Hebrew) month") headings. Hope the resubmission need not wait the three weeks that is stated in the yellow box. Many thanks! Becky613 (talk) 02:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Is there any chance that you can accelerate the submission process since the article has your approval already? Many thanks!Becky613 (talk) 17:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

{{done}} APerson (talk!) 17:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC) Thank you!Becky613 (talk) 01:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm wondering why this page was rejected to be moved to article space. I've heard time and again that it reads like an advertisement. I changed all subjective language, and it no longer reads like an advertisement. Please advise with specific examples. If I fix these problems, the article should be moved to article space?82.67.177.45 (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

First, am I correct in assuming that you are Enjosh13 editing from an IP? Thank you for your work on the article! The stuff that most of the reviewers raise a red flag at includes the relatively low number of references for an article of that size and the fact that WP:RS says you should be using reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I'm not sure that the website of the subject is independent of it, or that you should be using Yahoo Voices or Google Docs as sources. The ULCA references are somewhat affiliated with the subject. Therefore, your article has only one "reliable source independent of the subject", which is a journal that I can't even check. Not to imply that the text of the article is bad; however, the huge list of publications and the advisory board section's emphasis on how the board contains "Hollywood industry professionals" might also be red flags for reviewers. The lead of the article and the first paragraph of the "Mission and Goals" section, the parts that should be relatively heavily sourced, are completely lacking in sources. Thank you for your work on the article, again! APerson (talk!) 19:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

{{Resolved|Article was created.}}

I'm not sure I understand the comment about reliable sources. The significant events cited in the article were reported at the time by The Ann Arbor News, and links to individual articles are provided. ChuckSchaldenbrand (talk) 19:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

There does not seem to be any list of references in your article. This may be caused by a lack of a Template:reflist. Please add one before re-submitting. Also, three sources seems a little low. Thank you for your work on the article! APerson (talk!) 20:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Added both reflist and two further linked citations.ChuckSchaldenbrand (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Alright; article was created. APerson (talk!) 13:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the time you spend reviewing articles. You recently declined the article on "Space Physics Archive Search and Extract" due to "not adequately supported by reliable sources". Three of the references are to peer reviewed journal articles. In the community where they were published they are considered the most reliable source of information. I've read the "Referencing for beginners" and its seems the articles would meet the stated criteria. Could it be that the other references which are self-published project documents is the reason. Can you help clarify this for me? Thanks. Tking999 (talk) 04:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, WP:RS says that articles should use reliable sources that are independent of the subject (i.e. you can't cite the website of the consortium). Besides this, an article of this length should have more than the three sources that are left. Feel free to re-submit it when more sources are added - thanks! APerson (talk!) 18:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello: Could you please explain further how my article is not cited by reliable sources? I've cited what I believe to be independent sources, and I cannot figure out what else to do. A specific explanation would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, Danaricc (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on the article! WP:RS suggests that all sources used in an article be independent, reliable sources. The Huffington Post is a good reference; but IMDB might not be a reliable source; and BuzzFeed is borderline reliable. The second sentence in your article makes two claims but cites only one of them; however, the citation only supports one of the claims. (You should break up the sentence and find a source for the Fox News claim.) The AIM article is good. I cleaned up the references a little. It seems like you still should add a little more sources, but after you add them the article will certainly be created. Thanks! APerson (talk!) 11:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear APerson,

Thanks very much for approving the NetOwl page!! I would like to ask for some guidance regarding the flag "This article needs additional citations for verification". Please, what parts of the article need additional citations? And how does it work when I add additional citations? Does the article need to be re-submitted for approval and the flag is then removed?

Thanks very much again for all your time and effort. Astigitana (talk) 01:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)astigitana

The "History" section probably needs a little bit more sources. Don't remove any of the AfC submission templates; they will all be removed when the article is created. Thanks! APerson (talk!) 01:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/All American High (edit | project page | history | links | watch | logs)

Start reviewing again, after that ediit. ;-) mabdul 05:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

a) I don't get it (sorry), and b) I seem to have picked the wrong decline reason. APerson (talk!) 15:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

You have declined it as a "test edit" [1]; I have cleaned the submission by hand and removed the doubled stuff and improved the submission even more. Dunno, but why is / was that a test edit? mabdul 05:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you made mistake for the change i made because it was actually constructive. Can you please put it on back?

Hi, thank you for notifying me about reverting my edit on Italian alphabet. I am sorry I could not find how to summarize my intervention, but I clarify that I did not edit the page as vandalism nor as a test.

I am italian and I speak italian as my mother language, I therefore corrected some mistakes present in the explanation of hiatus. Precisely, some of the words reported as examples for hiatus occurrences are indeed wrong, as they present a diphthong instead. The words i removed for this reason are: deviare, iato, liana, viaggio. The word "iato" itself is notorious as it means "hiatus" while not being an example of hiatus.

I removed also the word "dioscuro" as it does not exist in italian, and sounds more like an actual vandalism of the page by someone who knows italian, willing to make fool of non-italian speaking readers.

I finally edited the introductory phrasing of the sentence as the reported exceptions are indeed a small amount, not really "many exceptions" as it was stated previously.

Best regards, 81.88.230.28 (talk) 20:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Alright - that seems fine. (Sorry I didn't examine your edit more closely.) APerson (talk!) 18:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

{{Resolved|Article was created.}}

Hello, Our page was not accepted on August 29, and more references were requested for the Works section. I think we have added many new references and hope that it can be approved now. Let me know if there is still a problem. We added the publisher for each book, links to reviews when available, and some new works that are on JSTOR or other sites. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Margaret_Ashmun

Thank you RuthinBrooklyn (talk) 13:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi APerson, I have noticed you review Articles for Creation. Would you mind reviewing two articles I have submitted? I would greatly appreciate it if you did. The articles are below:

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Casitas del Sur Case  Created
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jorge Erdely Graham  Created

Thanks. Ajax F¡ore_talk 19:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

@Ajaxfiore: Sure! If you don't mind me asking, how did you find out that I review at AfC? APerson (talk!) 20:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

You are listed as an active reviewer at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants so I decided to contact you. Ajax F¡ore_talk 20:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I looked at your articles. It looks like Jorge Erdely Graham might need more sources, such as mention in major news sources. Casitas del Sur case looks good. APerson (talk!) 20:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I will look for more sources for the other article. Ajax F¡ore_talk 21:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I have resubmitted Jorge Erdely Graham with more sources, including major news sources and two books. Just in case you wish to reassess the article. Ajax F¡ore_talk 23:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The other article was created. Thank you for your work on the articles! APerson (talk!) 00:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, please provide me with more detailed explanation as per why my article was refused again. I have been through all the guidelines and help sections and still don't understand what I am doing wrong? For example, what kind of references could I add for the History section? Maybe I should just remove this section altogether if it's difficult for the information to be verified? Thank you in advance for your help! :) StephCan (talk) 14:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

First, thanks for your work on the article. I appreciate the sources you added to the sections I mentioned in the comment on your draft. Although the "History" section is a very important section in the article, at the moment it reads a little bit like an advertisement ("expertise"? "the company realized"?) and is a little low on sources. All the article needs right now is some more sources from news organizations - you're going in the right direction with the Métro citation. Thanks! APerson (talk!) 02:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent review of the OVPSim page. I have just added a bunch more references as you requested, and resubmitted. This is a quite well used, open technology so I think deserves a wiki page more than some of the more commercial offerings one sees here. I am relatively new to Wikipedia from the editor perspective so if there are still not enough sources and references, please give me a sense of where I am missing the point. Many thanks Dave — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davekelf (talk • contribs) 17:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The only thing that the article needs right now is a very close reading of WP:GNG and making absolutely sure that it meets the criteria there. You should also look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OVPsim to see why this article was deleted. Thanks! APerson (talk!) 18:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

APerson,

I am inexperienced in writing Wikipedia articles and would very much like your help in resolving the recent rejection of my article. You have rejected it upon the grounds of needing more sources. I am unsure as to where to look for further evidence and sources for this particular incident. I have cited primary sources from the United States Air Force and Flight Safety magazines.Where else should I go and what should I reference? Thank you for your help and time! In addition,I apologize for the inconvenience and I look forward to working with you.

Respectfully, ljmorrow92Ljmorrow92 (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

At the moment, the content of the article is very good (with some grammar mistakes, but that can be fixed). However, an article of this length should not have only 6 references. There might be sources from newspapers or other periodicals at the time of the accident. Thanks! APerson (talk!) 13:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick feedback! I'll get right on finding more outside sources(such as CNN,NY Times and others). Thank you again for the help! Ljmorrow92 (talk) 14:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

On 19 September 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article MNIST database, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the best error rate a computer program has gotten on the MNIST database of handwritten digits is 0.23 percent? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/MNIST database. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The article on this published author seems libelous and states that he has been been charged with crimes and is wanted by the Mexican government in connection with a trafficking ring.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jorge_Erdely_Graham

I am fully bilingual and the sources cited in Spanish do not substantiate this. A criminal accusation needs to be duly substantiated and corroborated by sufficient accredited sources, specially on a BLP and before classifying it under Organized Crime or Wanted Criminals.

I have edited the article but it was immediately reversed by the user who originated the article, so I am puzzled.

Can you or other editors take a close look at this to make sure all the information complies with all applicable Wikipedia guidelines and policies?

46.37.161.249 (talk) 05:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear APerson

A commmentator named Zero states that my W4W article is not neutral, and is going to propose deletion if not fixed.

I have extensively quoted both the W4W and WoW positions on prayer at the Western Wall. I responded to Zero to please air her concerns and or make changes as she wishes. Zero has not yet responded.

I hope pages cannot be deleted without some discussion. Any help will be appreciated, I cannot however attend to the W4W page for about another week.

Many thanks Becky613 (talk) 22:44, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I was rather surprised by your decision there, and am worried that it may have discouraged a potentially valuable contributor. I made some comments on this matter, which you may not have seen, here. Best wishes, Ian Spackman (talk) 05:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

In the absence of a reply I have moved the useful article to mainspace. Ian Spackman (talk) 16:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

{{Resolved|Article created.}}

made changes is this ok Jayfrankauthor 11:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayfrankauthor (talk • contribs)

I have been working on the resubmission but the final text does not show beyond "Bertha Dixon died in 1947" omitting reference and rest of information although my edit version appears in full to include "followed by William Dixon in 1959. They were survived by five children and seven grandchildren." Do reviewers view both the edit page and the final text version? ˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.229.52 (talk) 03:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I did MNIST database (and am trying to think of more). Could you please glance over Wikipedia:Peer review/OpenOffice.org/archive1? Thanks :-) - David Gerard (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

That was really helpful, thank you so much! Please see what you think now - David Gerard (talk) 10:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

This newsletter was delivered on behalf of WPAFC by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:39, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

from APerson CrunchBase, being a "wiki-like site" (as it says on its home page, anyone can edit it), probably is not a reliable source at all. from Jayfrankauthor . Thanks it has been removed but it is used on other references in the Wikipedia. from APerson Language is somewhat promotional From Jayfrankauthor has been revised. Sorry for the trouble. Please accept this it is for Costal Carolina travel project grade. We picked this and are suppose to have it published on Wikipedia. We have never used this company or ever been there or have any relation to them. We do not understand some of the comments about promotion for them. It was very hard to find anything that you did not have ? .Jayfrankauthor 22:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayfrankauthor (talk • contribs)

Dear Reviewer,

I have received a message from Wikipedia informing me about the fact my article hadn't been accepted. The reason that was mentioned was that "The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes." I would like to know though, which material in my article is considered as "inline citation" and thus needs being "confirmed" by a footnote.

I would very much appreciate your guidance and help on that. Thank you very much in advance.

G. Moukidis.

P.S. The page I am talking about is the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/George_Moukidis Moukidis (talk) 11:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on the article so far, but in general Wikipedia articles should have citations for every part of the article that is a quote or might be "challenged or likely to be challenged" (WP:Verifiability). For example, many of the statements in the "Early years" and "Career" sections might need citations - e.g. "he creates a musical scene in Salonica, the well-known 'Pararlama'", "That’s where his career both as a composer and songwriter really arises.", or "among the best musical artists of the Greek disc industry". APerson (talk!) 13:53, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear APerson, I do not understand why you decided that the submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Hof_International_Film_Festival

Please check references 1 and 2: http://www.german-films.de/festivalguides/selected-german-film-festivals/festview/detail/mode/de/query/h/festival/hof-international-film-festival/ http://www.goethe.de/kue/flm/weg/weg/fes/ffd/hof/enindex.htm Hof is a very important film festival in Germany. Alle major German media regularly report every year on Hof, which means that films screened there can receive national attention. Only Berlin, Munich and Max Ophuls films festival get similar media attention in Germany. What more proof do you expect precisely of the notability of Hof?

Best regards, Tim Timothyweber (talk) 11:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

While this is a really good article so far, there are very few statements that would be "challenged or likely to be challenged" (WP:V), such as "Hof International Film Festival is completed by a traditional soccer match" and the content in the "Prizes" section. Otherwise, I was mistaken: the subject of the article is definitely notable. Thank you for your work on the article! APerson (talk!) 13:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear APerson,

Thanks for your encouragement. The soccer match is a classic, mentioned in http://www.goethe.de/kue/flm/weg/weg/fes/ffd/hof/enindex.htm

I have now deleted the "Prizes" section. Would you care to review the submission of Hof International Film Festival again?

Best regards, TimTimothyweber (talk) 18:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

At this point, I think it would be a good idea to let another article reviewer take a look at it. (A second opinion would be nice.) APerson (talk!) 19:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments regarding my recent AfC. I have now removed duplicate emboldened references in my article and strengthened the citation to the best I can. Until very recently there was no information available about the work of 112 Signals Unit because it was a military classified unit. It has only been since the 30-year constraint has been lifted that information has passed from the Ministry of Defence to The National Archive in London regarding certain aspects of this unit that I can now write about since first working there in the early sixties. As a result of three key documents' released into the publice domain I can now reference them in this article. Because of the units previous security classification there is little reference anywhere to the point that this article will be one of the first made publicly available provided you, or another reviewer, releases it. In any case there is no doubting the authenticity or the validity of the data I have cited that is now at The National Archive, which as a registered reader, I have personally reviewed. I don't know what other steps that I can take to convince any reviewer of the need to get this citable information initially out into the public domain? GeoffH 112SU (talk) 23:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I removed most of the bolding per Wikipedia's guideline on it. After the duplicate references were removed, the article looks good now. Would you mind re-submitting so I can accept it? APerson (talk!) 15:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Please read the AFC feedback here.

When I am unsure about an AFC submission, I frequently just leave a comment and leave the review to the next reviewer, then watchlisting the page to see what happens. If I'm right, I gain confidence. If I'm wrong, I learn something. You may want to do something similar with borderline submissions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the submission for CCI Global Channel Management. I have reviewed Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and verifiability policy and edited the page accordingly. I resubmitted it yesterday for review. If it still is not acceptable, I would sincerely appreciate any specific feedback you can provide on how to improve the submission.

Thank you, LaughnoteLaughnote (talk) 16:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

In general, it seems like your article "reads like an advertisement" since the only two content sections in it are "History" and "Products". Your article probably needs more references like the Press Democrat one - articles that just talk about the subject of the article. APerson (talk!) 22:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

You recently approved the AFC submission Rent My Vacation Home USA. You may wish to watchlist that page and this related page as well as the user talk pages of the major contributors of Rent My Vacation Home USA. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I am trying to place a peer review event in the {{Article history}} in Talk:MNIST database. It constantly gives a error. APerson (talk!) 01:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Consider backing out your changes and following the instructions at Wikipedia:Peer review. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I fixed the template with this edit. According to more tech-savvy people than me, you had some UTF character appended to the date, namely U+201E, which obviously screwed up the template. Huon (talk) 02:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! APerson (talk!) 19:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear APerson, You declined my article, "Zombiepox" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Zombiepox) because the "submission's references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability—see the general guideline on notability and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia."

I added more information and 3 additional citations, bringing the total to 8 citations for a relatively short article. Is that sufficient to make the article publishable? Is there anything else I should do?

Thanks, Foreveryoung93 (talk) 18:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

At this point, I think the notability issue has been resolved. However, I am somewhat worried about the "Research" section. The reference for the first statement of the section, in which a "psychology study" is cited, uses a blog post (reference #6) as a reference. WP:CHALLENGE says that information "likely to be challenged" needs a citation, so this definitely needs a citation to a reliable source. Having said that, WP:UGC says that "user-generated content", like blogs, are "largely not acceptable" as reliable sources. The same goes for references #7 and #8, which seem to be more blog posts. If you find a reference to the lab that did this research (for example, a published scientific paper), by all means include those statements in the article. Thanks! APerson (talk!) 19:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

APerson, thank you so much for the feedback! I believe that the academic paper on the research is pending publication. As a result, I changed the wording so that it describes the study results as initial, rather than confirmed. Does this fix the issue? If not, I'll remove the research section for now.Foreveryoung93 (talk) 15:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think that clears up the "Research" section. By the way, if you look at other articles on games - Halo 4, for instance - you can get an idea of what sort of sections would end up in a game article. Some sections that might be a good idea for the article (you don't have to add all of them) that appear in the Halo 4 article are "Development", "Release", and "Reception" (among others). Adding a few of those would greatly improve the article. At this point, I think another reviewer should have a look at the article and accept/decline it, but it seems to be a very good article at the moment. APerson (talk!) 00:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that you rejected my submission for the article "Lao Human Rights Council"

"This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources."

You made it seem in your rejection that our references to "High Beam" were unreliable. High Beam is a research data base for news articles from main stream publications, which we cite throughout the article (by author, date, publication, and article title) with "High Beam" links (because many of the articles are now archived and no longer easily available online). These sources are all reliable 9as is the High Beam research portal and database) so as to provide online links to these archived news articles from major U.S. and international news sources.

I have however, went ahead and added a half dozen or more additional sources from the New York Times, Reuters, Business Wire, Scoop Independent News, the Green Bay Press Gazette, Green Bay Wisconsin, etc. to address your statement that that article is not adequately supported, with direct links to these news articles, by passing the High Beam research and referencing portal and links.

Thank you. I hope the article will address your concerns, since the article is now currently just a stub, I have not had the time to add the many, many other reference sources from various academic journals, magazines, and other additional news articles which I hope to do later as I have time as a volunteer.

Again, thank you for your assistance.

Publico2020 (talk) 03:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

The article looks good, but some of the citations are distributed very unevenly - for instance, in the revision I'm looking at, references 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 are all stacked after what seems to be the mission statement of the organization (which might as well go in the lead of the article anyway). HighBeam seems like a good source, per WP:HIGHBEAM, so I retract my previous comments about HighBeam's reliability. Also, while a lot of information on the history of the organization is present in the lead, other bits of information that should go in there include the mission statement (as noted previously) and a summary of the goals or current efforts of the organization. More description of the current projects of the organization would further improve the article. Thanks! APerson (talk!) 00:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

As you previously participated in related discussions you are invited to comment at the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission criteria. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing my reviews. I learned how to review by studying what you (and a couple of other reviewers) did in the past. Makes me happy that you've passed them. THANK YOU. JSFarman (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad to have helped! APerson (talk!) 02:11, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi.

Could you possibly give me some more information as to why the article on Joey Cupido was declined? There are lots on NLL lacrosse players listed in wikipedia as the NLL is the highest lacrosse league in the world. Joey Cupido was named to the NLL all rookie team last season, making him one of the young stars of the game. I would appreciate it if you could let me know if there is something I'm missing in the artile or the references. Is the problem the football information? Should that be removed?

Thanks

Thebigshadiw (talk) 12:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)thebigshadiw

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does, in fact, agree with you in that the existence of other similar articles can be used as an argument for the creation of one article. I am currently reading over WP:SPORTCRIT and will get back to you soon. Thanks! APerson (talk!) 00:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts. Thanks again. I look forward tp a response. Thebigshadiw (talk) 18:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)thebigshadiw

It seems good to me, though you might want to add more sources that talk about the subject in depth and aren't just WP:ROUTINE. Side note: When you sign a post, all you have to do is type ~~~~ without your username at the end and your signature will appear.APerson (talk!) 22:14, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

OK. Thanks again for the help. What should I do now...resubmit with further references? Or will the article be accepted now on your authority?

Thebigshadiw (talk) 11:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think more references that aren't just press releases should be added; after that, another reviewer should probably look at it. I am reasonably sure that it will be accepted. Thank you for your work on the article! APerson (talk!) 21:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again for all the suggestions and help. I have added more references as you suggested and resubmitted. Hopefully this will be enough. Thebigshadiw (talk) 14:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

You created this article per an AFC request. It appears to be a wp:BLP that relies entirely on primary, self-published sources by the subject person. Please take a closer look. LeadSongDog come howl! 05:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Shari,

I'm not sure I understand your comments. What is an AFC request? The article I submitted is not a biography of a person; it is about :a website/online network called LogoLounge. The sources are not self-published. Can you let me know what I need to do for approval? :Thank you.

Adnamalou (talk) 13:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

LeadSongDog is talking about another person. APerson (talk!) 22:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello APerson, I recently submitted information about a website called LogoLounge. You indicated that the language "LogoLounge has become an indispensible tool ..." was promotional and should be cited. The full sentence was "LogoLounge has become an indispensible tool for logo research, discussion, inspiration, reference and an online portfolio for the international who’s who in the corporate identity design community.", which was published by someone unrelated to this website and was cited as such. It was the second citation. It can be set off with quotes if that is preferred. You also indicated that the language "progressive fashion" was promotional. This language was used in reference to the books the website publishes, which do present the content in a progressive fashion. This is something that is unique to books in this field, thus is a defining characteristic. I request that you re-review the submission for approval. Thank you. Adnamalou (talk) 22:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

The specific source you cite for that sentence, which seems to be a site called Xmarks, seems to allow anybody (with an account, which is free) to edit the description of the site. As such, it probably is not a reliable source. (Reading rest of article, will get back to you soon...) APerson (talk!) 22:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I am wondering if you will please be a little more specific about what you mean by a few more sources. Do you mean sources that I should back up the sources that are already sourced or do you mean that every statement needs to be backed up with a source. Someone else sourced the original for me and I am not sure how to do it. Michaelgossett (talk) 23:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Are there any sources that specifically are about the subject of the article? At least one of the sources cited in the article only give tangential mention to the subject (the Roughstock reference). The only problem with the article is not enough sources that prove notability of the subject. WP:BIO suggests that to have an article, someone should ne "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". (Suggestion: Please use Citation Style 1.) APerson (talk!) 21:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I saw that you'd been helping at WikiProject Requested Articles, and I wondered if you had seen the proposal to make the process slicker here. Thanks, Matty.007 18:53, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

No, I didn't. Thanks! APerson (talk!) 21:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your earlier review of Rendezvous Hashing. I have just resubmitted it after making the required changes (a second reviewer had reviewed it after you, and deferred to other reviewers). Could you take a look at it to see if the article is acceptable now? Thanks. Ardhajya (talk) 03:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I responded on the talk page of a user you're already talking with about the article. Thanks! APerson (talk!) 02:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if you are watching the user talk page you mentioned above, but I updated the article and placed a message there. Thanks. Ardhajya (talk) 19:47, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

@Ardhajya: Alright; let's wait for another reviewer to take a look at it. Thank you for your work on the article! APerson (talk!) 02:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmm... thanks, but it's unclear how this process is going to converge if we add reviewers serially. Please help me out here...the usual peer review process has all reviews coming in at once, with someone coordinating the review process. All concerns are addressed at once, rather than sequentially, with several weeks in between. How will the review coordination process work here? Will the next reviewer know how to find our earlier discussions on the previous reviewer's talk page, or will everything start afresh? Ardhajya (talk) 02:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I guess we could include a link on the submission to the talk page section you mentioned. APerson (talk!) 02:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your continued engagement. I believe that including reviews with articles would be unusual in peer review. I'm amazed that Wikipedia does not have a place to store reviews during the AfC process. Perhaps it expects either (1) that articles are subject to a single review (readers will fix problems later, if found), or (2) that a single reviewer follows up to ensure timeliness, and guard against serial reviewer idiosyncrasies. My impression is that you are generally happy with this article. Could I persuade you to accept under (1), or play role (2) here? Regards. Ardhajya (talk) 20:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi there,

I work for Uken Games (a social/mobile gaming company) and we tried submitting an article about the company a few weeks ago which was rejected because "This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources." We are confused as to what are considered reliable sources. We modelled our page after a fellow "smallish" Toronto gaming studio (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capybara_Games), and were wondering what we could do to get the article accepted.

Many of the things written about us are written by journalists/writers for small, tech websites. Is that a problem for citing"reliable sources"? Thanks for your help! GabrielHauser (talk) 21:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I resubmitted the Uken Games article with more references. Also more external links. Hopefully that is sufficient. Thanks! GabrielHauser (talk) 13:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

	The AFC Backlog Buster Barnstar
	Congratulations, APerson! You're receiving the AfC Barnstar because you reviewed 160 articles during the recent AFC Backlog elimination drive! Thank you for you contributions to Wikipedia at-large and helping to keep the backlog down.You are also receiving the Teamwork barnstar for re-reviewing over 25 reviews! We hope you continue reviewing submissions and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! --Mdann52talk to me! 19:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

{{done}} Note to self: added to awards page. APerson (talk!) 01:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Thank you for your valued feedback after reviewing our content for creation. While I am working on your citation style suggestions, I'm a bit confused... I modeled our content to be similar to testing tool pages/references already published in Wiki, so if you have a moment to share with me on how/what I could do to improve the quality of my page contents, that'll be really appreciated. Also, I had a line which contained our Patents (but it was deleted after review, is this not allowed? (I've edited it back in for you to see, last line in table), please help me to clarify whether this (Patents) are/aren't(?) considered to be notable resources outside of eValid? (I'm working on the links to reference our Public Patents..) None of the articles which we referenced were by writers/authors working for us. I will include a few more links to outside reviews about our testing tools. Any pointers would be greatly appreciated, as I'm hoping that my next set of edits will help get us into further along the acceptance status. Thank you for your time,

Articles_for_creation/eValid — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.254.224 (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, the line about patents is undoubtedly important to the article; however, there's no place for it in the little box on the right side of the page, which is created by that brick of template code that links to {{Infobox software}}. If you want to include it, it should go in the main text of the article in a prominent location. The article as it is right now is quite close to being accepted; it just needs a little more sourcing to establish notability. I looked at most of the books which you linked to in the "References" section. The sources you cite in the final article should be mostly or exclusively about the program, such as a news article about the program or a review of the program from a reliable, independent source - Testing and Quality Assurance for Component-based Software, for instance, mentions the software exactly twice - it talks about eValid as a "typical example" of a GUI-based testing program. Otherwise, it's a pretty good article! APerson (talk!) 01:13, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Rachend (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, Thank you for reviewing my Article on Drew McAdam.

I am new to Wikipedia and am struggling (as you see) with the referencing side.

I have followed Drew McAdam as a Mentalist for many years. He is very well respected within his industry and has contributed a great deal. He is also very well respected in Education and Journalism.

Others, far less notable in his industry have Wikipedia pages and I would very much welcome support in creating this page.

Any advice, comments or help are greatly appreciated.

Thanks

Scarlet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarlet Penn (talk • contribs) 17:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I cleaned it up a little, but the main issue is that the article needs more references. Fortunately, that's not a big problem - all you have to do is use <ref> tags to insert references. (I cleaned them up a little; try to replace the ones marked with "dead link" with some other source.) Here are some helpful links (generated by {{Find sources|Drew McAdam}}):

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks! APerson (talk!) 00:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello APerson. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Moko, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: My interpretation of A7 is that it only applies to real individual animals. Thank you. —Darkwind (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for the feedback on creating a page for Andy O'Mahony. I have to admit I'm a little confused by your comments regarding references; it states that my sources are unreliable yet each one is a reference to a national published newspaper in Ireland with archive records. Any tips on what I'm doing wrong gratefully appreciated! TelevisionArchive (talk) 21:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The first issue is that I am unable to check because you don't include a URL inside your <ref> tags. Also, it would definitely help to use Citation Style 1 - {{cite journal}} templates would help. Thanks! APerson (talk!) 00:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that you have signed up for the drive. Please note that the AFCBuddy script does not appear to be functioning at this time. Therefore, user Backlog Elimination Drive log pages will need to be manually updated. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi APerson!

Thanks for reviewing this article! It has been declined, the „What you can do“-entry advises to add citations to secondary sources, and your personal comment hints at coverage by reliable, independent news organizations. Could you please help me with some advise how to solve these issues?

- One problem is maybe language and how to make 'local knowledge' more accessible, but I guess this issue occurs frequently in the English Wikipedia? t0 is based in Vienna/Austria, it is active on both levels, international and national. There is a lot of scholarly and high quality material in English, but the bigger part of coverage by mainstream media is in Austria and partly in Germany, so mostly in German language. There has been coverage in practically all important national newspapers in Austria, by Austria's public broadcasting corporation ORF and by German media, including major newspapers such as Sueddeutsche Zeitung and Die Welt. Quite some of this is already cited in the article, so the remaining problem seems to be mainly how to make this visible and verifiable to people who don't read German and don't know the local situation?

- In some cases t0 documented press coverage on their own websites, sometimes with scans (like here by Indian newspapers at the occasion of a big cooperation project in Bangalore: http://world-information.org/wio/pressroom/downloads/1134143051), sometimes as lists of citations (like in general press-kits which they published until approx. 2000: http://www.t0.or.at/1999.htm). Using these sources would have several advantages: they document sources of which only a small part could be found directly in open archives of the news organizations, and it would be a possibility to document broad news coverage with only a few links in the Wikipedia-article (mainstream media coverage might be important to prove the notability, and it documents that the subject has also been noticed by a broader public, but content-wise news-coverage is in most cases too superficial and hardly able to meet the complexity of the subject, so i think it should not dominate the Wikipedia-article). But is it ok as an „independent source“?

Thanks for your help! Becomingx7 (talk) 08:40, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, sources you cite do not necessarily have to be in English. Make sure the sources you use aren't just press releases; I would suggest linking to the actual articles. Otherwise, feel free to re-submit it. Thanks! APerson (talk!) 00:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I have edited and re-submitted the article today, used direct links to the actual articles where possible. Becomingx7 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks for taking the time to review the Iris Theatre page.

Do you have any tips on how I might improve it so that it might be accepted?

Thanks,

Ben. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonbpol (talk • contribs) 17:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I looked at most of the sources in the article. In terms of both "content sources" and sources to establish notability (i.e. reliable, independent sources that are specifically about the subject), more news article-like sources are needed. I get that it's a theatre company and that it's a charity: what is it notable for? APerson (talk!) 01:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

{{Resolved|Article was created. APerson (talk!) 03:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)}}

Hi APerson:

You reviewed my article that I wrote for Dr. Jo Boaler and, first of all, thank you. Second, I apologize if I am asking you a question on your talk page instead of mine. I have not quite mastered the process of asking questions or getting help from Wiki editors. Third of all, I have some questions about adding more reliable sources to the article.

My first question is: I am not sure if I am supposed to actually delete the citations of Dr. Boaler's published articles or just add them in addition to the secondary course citations. I am confused because her articles are from peer-reviewed reputable journals, and I thought that they counted as reliable sources. I mean, should I add the reliable citation from a secondary source AND cite her? Or should I solely use the secondary source citation. Also, I am using Claude Steele's and Carol Dweck's Wikipedia articles as prototypes for how to cite Dr. Boaler's articles. Is this a good idea, because they cite a lot of the author's works--so I am not sure.

My second question is: The producer of the movie "Race to the Nowhere", said that she in in the process of making a movie with Jo Boaler in it that is the sequel to Race to Nowhere. Vicki Abeles and Dr.Boaler are in a podcast, but is a podcast a reliable source? http://www.commonwealthclub.org/events/2013-09-17/education-whats-working-whats-not-whats-next

My third question is: Is a blog on the Washington Post website a reliable source? http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/is-this-really-what-education-is-about/2012/05/19/gIQAoEf4bU_blog.html

Felicia Darling 06:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC) Felicia Darling — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleadarling (talk • contribs) 06:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)